
As Bill and Melinda Gates point out in their Foreword, Singer's classic essay "Famine, Affluence and Morality," is as relevant today as it ever was. It is published here together with two of Singer's more popular writings on our obligations to those in poverty, and a new introduction by Singer that brings the reader up to date with his current thinking.
That being said, some work in practical ethics has had a huge impact. Peter Singer's work on animal ethics started the modern animal rights movement, and his essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" has inspired many people to donate a lot more to charity than they otherwise would.
One way to conceptualize things is that you are a consciousness that has won the birth lottery - being born into a well-off family, or at least a family in a rich country. I don't believe in souls - this is just a way of thinking; a hypothetical to imagine, akin to "what if I was born a minority, or a member of some persecuted group". The realization that you could have been unlucky may help empathize with those less fortunate.
Branko Milanovic, a world economist focusing on income (inequality) points out that 3 of the biggest contributors to one's income are (a) the country you are born into, (b) the income/wealth of the family you are born into, and (c) the gender. Note that all three are not something one can choose. So the "lottery" of life I describe isn't just metaphorical.
I don't think I would be willing to give 10% of my income if I didn't learn about how cost-effective charity can be. For example, with a $0.50 donation to SCI a child will be provided an anti-worm pill - curing and preventing parasitic worm infections for about a year (see GiveWell to learn more).
I recommend reading the short but super-influential essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" by Peter Singer. And after that, read some books by him too.
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/videos-books-an...
http://www.utilitarianism.net/singer/by/1972----.htm
Singer is arguably the 'greatest' philosopher of the last fifty years [1]. Agree with him or not, he has thought deeply about the issue and his reasoning around it and expressed these thoughts within a framework of rule based utilitarian philosophy.
Singer's Ted talk on the subject:
http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_singer_the_why_and_how_of_eff...
Singer's homepage at Princeton, the link page includes links to most of his papers:
http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/
[1] Not that I am interested in arguing. I only use the term to suggest that the list of candidates is not very long, at the moment. In fifty years who knows?
EA started as a continuation of Peter Singer's argument in "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" (1972), as a progression after the founding of Giving What We Can (thousands of people giving at least 10% of their pre-tax income to cost-effective charities).
Have you ever read about it here? https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/introduction-to-e...
